An X-Ray of the republican base

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I was reading FiveThrityEight and found a reference to an analysis in Democracy Corps titled "The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans. Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America"

these voters identify themselves as part of a 'mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country.  They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism.

Reading the article I found an interesting tidbit:

Our combined survey data reveals that the Georgia group definition fits more than three-quarters (77 percent) of conservative strong or weak Republicans of the 45-60 age group, and an even higher proportion – 85 percent – of white strong Republicans of the same age.

and that "...There's only one FOX".

Basically, they're drinking coolaid unfiltered and asking for more. 

[pieces o nine]

Nothing in that article surprises me.

The "strong conservatives" among my family and friends always seem confused when I comment critically on action (or lack of action) from a moderate or progressive politico. I do not believe any of these people are even capable of seeing errors -- let alone speaking them aloud -- from the far right. They also, each and every one, use language which presents themselves as part of a horribly persecuted religious minority whose rights are being violated 'left', 'right' and 'center'.

The local paper allows some anonymous commentary. One of today's gems thanked god that "only Fox" is available in this area.  (It may *seem* like it, but this was, in itself, an inaccurate claim.)  If not for the 'fearless'  (FEARLESS!   FEARLESS!!   HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!)  and vigilant Fox journalists, then the unmitigated evil that is ACORN -- and a short list of liberal, America-hating conspirators --  would never have been brought to light.‡


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
‡ DISCLAIMER:  To be fair, I have mockingly paraphrased the anonymous citizen. She/he/it did not use any words over one syllable in the original comment.

[Swatopluk]

They are like the dwarfes in the final Narnia novel. They can sit in paradise* but even G0d himself is unable to get the idea out of their heads that they are locked in the dark and dirty shack.

*not that the US (or the world) is, was or will ever be a paradise.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

They also, each and every one, use language which presents themselves as part of a horribly persecuted religious minority whose rights are being violated 'left', 'right' and 'center'.

But aren't they indeed a minority? Perhaps a substantial minority but a minority no less. I wonder if they consider themselves part of Nixon's "silent majority" to find out that there is no longer such thing.

Logic tells me that the writing is on the wall and that their numbers will keep going down (more urban dwellers, changes in attitude from younger generations, etc) but I'm still surprised with all the stuff they have been able to get away with.

Also a question to our European siblings: is there an overlap between the Republican base and the more radical EU parties like the BNP or Jörg Haider's movements?

[beagle]

Also a question to our European siblings: is there an overlap between the Republican base and the more radical EU parties like the BNP or Jörg Haider's movements?

Some but not much I'd suspect for the BNP. They're essentially a race rather than a religious or economic theory based party. Both wrap themselves in the flag, and both are suspicious of "the liberal media", and both have irrational hatreds of minorities. The BNP's main policy motor is the belief (right or wrong) that the indigenous population loses out to immigrants in housing, benefits etc.  I might be mistaken but I suspect the rights of America's indigenous population aren't foremost in Republican thought.   

[Swatopluk]

The Austrian FPÖ deviates in one significant point form the typical RW party, they (seem to have) have no special anti-gay policy.
That the late Jörg Haider tuned out to be gay might have had something to do with that.
On the other hand, in Austria one can be as much of a Nazi as one wants to be as long as the term 'Nazi' is avoided. It is the outspoken consent there that Austria is and has always been the innocent victim of (esp. German) aggression 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

They also, each and every one, use language which presents themselves as part of a horribly persecuted religious minority whose rights are being violated 'left', 'right' and 'center'.

But aren't they indeed a minority? Perhaps a substantial minority but a minority no less. I wonder if they consider themselves part of Nixon's "silent majority" to find out that there is no longer such thing.

Logic tells me that the writing is on the wall and that their numbers will keep going down (more urban dwellers, changes in attitude from younger generations, etc) but I'm still surprised with all the stuff they have been able to get away with.

I'm pretty sure it's because they're incredibly vocal and with eight years in the White House there's a number of them in a position to make sure we hear from them. Plus, they're a novelty--loud and crazy in a rapid sort of way. And I think there's a little bile fascination* involved. We've watched them wreck the country for eight years and yet they're still here, still trying to send us over the edge into their utopia. Our desire to watch the train wreck means we don't stop them.

On the other hand, as Zono says, the writing is on the wall and they're dying out. More people are going to have their eyes opened and they'll flee. The ones who stay will become more wrapped up in their politics and will be more and more vocal (ie, my parents identify as neo-conservatives and they're getting louder and louder about their politics by the day ).

It's like hearing about the train wreck of the century: Your better sensibilities are repulsed at the thought of it, and yet part of you wants to see that wreck in all its magnificent destruction. You want to see just how gloriously terrible it must be for all the high-profile people to be expressing their horror over it.

Another good question, which I put to my elder Siblings, is where did they come from? I was about eleven when Bush43 was elected so I have little knowledge of the political scene in the 90s. From what I do know, though, it seems like Regan is responsible for reshaping the Repug party via creating the Base is has now (the fundies, etc.) And before that, Carter because even though he was a democrat, he mad a big deal about being a Christian. Again, from what I know religion really wasn't a voting issue before him because everyone assumed you were Christian. You weren't expected to expound on it or relate your faith to your politics.

[beagle]

I only know what I've read in history books. My understanding was that in the JFK years religion wasn't  trumpeted, in part because of a fear that a perceived Vatican influence would be a big vote loser.  Were all the presidents (bar one ) since that WASPs, and so able to be religious without inculcating a fear of foreign* influence?


* Ignoring, for the purposes of this, that J.C. was a Middle Eastern radical.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think Roe vs. Wade was a powerful influence in the radicalization of the right, essentially transforming politics into a moral issue (as opposed to a government management issue). The next thing was the three way marriage between the Religious Right, the NRA and the economical libertarians (aka corporations), that took place to elect Dubya.

I'd like to think that Karl Rowe's masterstroke is the party's undoing, which should happen when each of those groups realizes that the enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend, but if something has been proven over and over is that rationality only exists in a portion corporate America that was pumping money into the system, but not in the other two groups.

The fact that more and more corporations are acknowledging the existence of global warming, the need for healthcare reform and the need for at least some regulation in the banking industry may transform the current right into a fringe movement.

Again this is all related to reason and rationality, which has been sorely lacking and there is no guarantee that even those with heavy economical interests will act rationally.

Perhaps we should way for Rupert Murdoch to pass away to move forward?

[pieces o nine]

...
Another good question, which I put to my elder Siblings, is where did they come from? I was about eleven when Bush43 was elected so I have little knowledge of the political scene in the 90s. From what I do know, though, it seems like Regan is responsible for reshaping the Repug party via creating the Base is has now (the fundies, etc.) And before that, Carter because even though he was a democrat, he mad a big deal about being a Christian. Again, from what I know religion really wasn't a voting issue before him because everyone assumed you were Christian. You weren't expected to expound on it or relate your faith to your politics.

Since I'm creaking towards cronehood  here, I'll put on an 'elder' hat and take a stab at your question, as it applies in the US.

I think that's been brewing for a long time. Zono's comments on Roe v Wade  are correct in that a significant population of (traditionalists -- for lack of a better word) from a variety of (previously incompatible) religious groups banded together into a new politics-makes-strange-bedfellows 'base', to strike back at the 'moral decay' flowing from the 'counter-cultural 1960s'. I've watched the attitudes of my employers range from considering religion and politics to be a personal matter outside their interest and jurisdiction, to being litmus tests for winning/keeping a job, insofar as failure to conform to 'conservative' on all counts is viewed as a sign of instability, insubordination, and (of late) unpatriotic or immoral tendencies. The level of responsibility and compensation have no bearing on this intrusion into the personal life of employees and/or co-workers.

In times of change and/or difficulty, a large portion of the public starts glomming on to 'prophecies' to reassure themselves that a clear path (defined by forcing 'them' to conform to 'us') exists through the uncertainty. Hand-in-glove with the prophecy fantasies is an unrealistic fantasy of a past time when all was well (for 'us' at least, and that's all that counts). These two sets of fantasies seem to drive a lot of socio-economic-political instability.

In my own lifetime, I've watched people of my parent's age completely forget everything they've personally lived through to embrace each crazy (IMO) new fear-mongering, neo-con trick to come down the pike. Sometimes I think that the main reason I have resisted indoctrination is that I have no hostages (in the form of children or serious property) to fortune, and therefore no fear-based stake in conforming at all costs.

My neo-con relatives and friends, on the other hand, will throw their loudly-proclaimed personal ethics out the window -- without batting an eye -- whenever their salaries or social status are threatened by sticking to those ethics. Interestingly, both they and their neo-con overlords continue voicing loud, fanatical support for the very concepts they are abandoning (even destroying). It just seems too threatening for them to think critically, act with integrity, or accept any data which challenges their perceived place as privileged beings in an orderly world created especially for them.

Examples:
1. Replacing the concept of being 'stewards of creation' as a sign of godly submission, with the 'truth' of using up everything as fast as possible, while making as much profit as possible, as a sign of godly blessing in return for unshakable faith that they will be raptured out of the mess they are making ... any second now  ...   Anyone not rapaciously wasting resources, obscenely profiting from human misery, and/or rejecting anything smacking of science (while clinging to comfortable, Western lifestyles) as failing to trust in god -- fear of which accusation from moral and intellectual pygmies seems to completely trump reason. Personally, I think the proper response to as shrill, "She/he/they DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!1!one!" would be a snort of derision and a continuation of rational behavior, not a blind, slavish adherence to the lowest common denominator of the accuser's belief system.

2. Replacing the concept of an educated, responsible, participating 'melting pot' (admittedly more theory than fact regardless of time) citizenry as the hallmark of patriotism  (as illustrated in a raft of public-service shorts produced from WWII on), with the concept of absolutely *destroying* the public educational system and seriously undermining representative government, as a weird 'proof' of xenophobic patriotism. I've pointed out the clause against religious litmus tests, and been met with near-hysterical fury from people frothing about 'hating /blaming America' and 'librull stoooopidity' about history.

3. Several of Dubya's presidential cronies came from The Project for the New American Century -- (aka PNAC) -- which I personally consider to be an embarrassingly unAmerican (if not completely inhuman) cabal.

It's almost Orwellian, the degree to which people who have lived through relevant, applicable history -- people who *should know better* -- will unblinkingly regurgitate the most egregious fables from FOX, becoming hysterical with anger if challenged on those views in the process. My partisan self rejoices at each crazy new move by the neo-cons to 'purify' themselves. My civic self mourns the loss of the *real* 'values' of the moribund Republican party.

Of course, I may be completely wrong about this.   

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think that the other big factor is immigration. The perceived alarming rate in which a different ethnic group is growing in size it's perhaps a -to a degree- rational fear. In previous waves of immigration the ones coming in were always demonized in several ways but they were still white, and integrated relatively quickly, or at least, there is that perception.

Considering the rate of immigration and fertility of the new immigrants the fear of being 'replaced' is -again, to a degree- a rational one, and imbibes more a siege mentality that helps the popularity of a number of conspiracy theories. It is plausible that as time passes and more Hispanics integrate to the American culture such fear will subside, but considering that race is still a factor in a considerable number of individuals in the previous generation, it will take a while.

[Swatopluk]

In the past there were official translations of the US national anthem into a large number of languages, so first generation immigrants (or the recently conquered*)could participate even without knowing English. Today the Right wants to make singing the anthem in Spanish a felony equal to desecrating the flag** etc.

*there is a Hawaian version
**unless they do it themselves, like Bush signing some, Beck stripping the stars off etc.

[The Meromorph]

I myself blame 'The Great Traitor', Nancy Reagan. When Ronald essentially turned into a vegetable, out of loyalty to her husband, she contrived to essentially conceal the extent of his mental deterioration until he left office, and thus allowed the 'Neo-Cons' to realize that a 'behind the scenes cabal could actually set policy and run the government with a 'puppet' president holding office. The president only needed to be 'electable', not competent. In mitigation, she did prevent them from actually seizing complete power during Reagan's presidency.
Bush 41 was an unwelcome shock to the cabal (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Arrington, Gingrich etc.) by not being the puppet they expected...
They did succeed in bringing down a competent president, and it was that activity, which polarised, energised, and created the American Taliban.
Bush 43 was the puppet they were seeking, they promoted him over the (reasonably competent) Jeb Bush (the intended successor chosen by Walker), who would not have been the 'puppet' they were looking for.

Without Nancy Reagan betraying her country for her husbands sake, it would never have happened...

[Swatopluk]

But Jeb was not the firstborn. The Bush/Walker clan is quite dynastic I hear and it was unthinkable to let the secondborn get the first shot (although he was of course useful in stealing the election in Florida).
I wonder, whether they will follow the Salic Law in their next attempt (Jenna and not-Jenna out of the question). But they will have to wait until at least 2016 in any case. First the teabaggers have to fail (should they triumph there will not be much to be president over/of).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Without Nancy Reagan betraying her country for her husbands sake, it would never have happened...

Mero, this works perfectly for the IF IF => Then game!